Ethics of pornography and sexually-suggestive content

[Night FM]

I'm curious what others' opinions are on the production/distribution and consumption of such content.

As for defining it, this requires some degree of subjectivity (as would be the case with defining a piece of content as "sexist/sexploitative"). If we use a legal definition, the inclusion of nudity or sex in a piece of content doesn't automatically make it pornographic or obscene if it is "redeemed" by the overall merit of the work in question, such as educational, literary, or artistic merit. (This is my understanding, anyway).

[MigL]

Consumption is purely voluntary.
It's not like you find pornography on billboards.

Although i realize young kids are exposed to pornography at much younger ages now, due to internet access, and parents neglecting their obligations to their kids; this has led to unreasonable expectations among young adults as to how women should be treated, what to expect from sex , and respect for their partner's limits.

[iNow]

Consent matters most.

Where consent can be provided without coercion and without taking advantage of the young or oppressed then we should all mind our own damned business 

[swansont]

1 hour ago, Night FM said:

I'm curious what others' opinions are on the production/distribution and consumption of such content.

What’s your opinion?

[StringJunky]

The Brits and Americans have a very uptight collective attitude compared to Europeans. The fact that it so much more censored makes it more 'naughty' and, therefore, potentially arousing, ironically. I noticed this a lot in my youth with old European films, where nudity was 'just there' without necessarily any sexual connotations.

Edited September 23 by StringJunky

[John Cuthber]

18 hours ago, MigL said:

It's not like you find pornography on billboards.

That depends on your definition.
Ask the Taliban what they think of a car advert featuring a young woman in a short dress draped across the vehicle.

 

 

3 hours ago, StringJunky said:

The Brits and Americans have a very uptight collective attitude compared to Europeans

The Brits are Europeans (albeit depraved or corrupted by American influence.)

[MigL]

10 hours ago, John Cuthber said:

Ask the Taliban what they think of a car advert featuring a young woman in a short dress draped across the vehicle.

I will definitely keep your advice in mind the next time I put up a billboard in Afghanistan 🙂 .

[dimreepr]

On 9/22/2024 at 3:47 PM, MigL said:

Although i realize young kids are exposed to pornography at much younger ages now, due to internet access, and parents neglecting their obligations to their kids; this has led to unreasonable expectations among young adults as to how women should be treated, what to expect from sex , and respect for their partner's limits.

Indeed, context is everything in how we imbibe information correctly, so if not the parent, then the next in line to be their ward, ultimately the village/state; porn should be a genuine teaching opportunity, at any age.

 

[Peterkin]

I personally have never had occasion to partake, except for one video we brought home out of curiosity. It was hilarious for about five minutes, and then just distasteful. I've had friends who liked looking at naked women in photographs, films and live shows, and a son-in-law who kept a stash of dirty movies in his garage. Daughter, at first upset, eventually capitulated and joined in. Presumably in the 'soft' range of the hetero spectrum.

My own take: Yech!

Pornography demeans every participant: the performers, the producers, the distributors and the consumers - as well as the subject matter. It reduces human beings to mindless puppets going through meaningless motions of someone else's fantasy; the purveyors to pandering and predation, the customers to their basest impulses. And that's ordinary graphic sexual content, which then branches off into far darker variants, featuring animals, children, violence and sadism. I don't think society benefits from promoting that aspect of the human psyche. I don't think the $ 15+ Billion annual revenue is used for the improvement of the nation's health.  

I'm all for public nudity, early and frank sex education, freedom of artistic expression, association and affiliation within the limits of informed adult consent, sexual and reproductive autonomy. I'm against the exploitation and corruption of the erotic imperative.

If that makes me a prig, I don't mind.

Edited September 24 by Peterkin

[Night FM]

On 9/22/2024 at 11:01 AM, swansont said:

What’s your opinion?

I think that most can reasonably agree that heavy consumption of porn isn't a good thing. As far as the fine line at which content is deemed exploitative, Bertrand Russell stated that societies demonstrate both modesty and jealousy, so simply being "offended" isn't enough to get a good definition. I think that even using common sense alone distinguish tasteful from distasteful content, but good luck trying to come up with an "exact science" for doing so (e.x. such as how another individual in this thread mentioned that the Taliban might consider a woman in a skirt on a billboard to be "pornographic").

I think the whole concept of "tasteful" versus "tasteless" also goes beyond things which would specifically be considered "pornography" (e.x. at some point, portrayals of violence in media lack any redeeming educational or artistic value and become tasteless).

It's similar to how most people would agree that "bad music" exists, but since there's no agreed-upon, formalized process for defining "good and bad music", doing so is more difficult than, say, deciding that a sports team played badly based on the outcome of a sports game. (And even some musicians who are well-regarded by the industry like Prince had critics who thought that they produced bad music).

Edited September 24 by Night FM

[dimreepr]

41 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

Pornography demeans every participant

Much like art demeans every buyer... 

[Night FM]

5 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Much like art demeans every buyer... 

Pornography wouldn't meet the definition of art. By definition, it would lack the serious artistic value to be redeemable. (Which would distinguish pornography from tasteful depictions of nudity and sex).

[dimreepr]

1 minute ago, Night FM said:

Pornography wouldn't meet the definition of art. By definition, it would lack the serious artistic value to be redeemable. (Which would distinguish pornography from tasteful depictions of nudity and sex).

Who, says?

[swansont]

38 minutes ago, Night FM said:

I think that most can reasonably agree that heavy consumption of porn isn't a good thing. As far as the fine line at which content is deemed exploitative, Bertrand Russell stated that societies demonstrate both modesty and jealousy, so simply being "offended" isn't enough to get a good definition. I think that even using common sense alone distinguish tasteful from distasteful content, but good luck trying to come up with an "exact science" for doing so (e.x. such as how another individual in this thread mentioned that the Taliban might consider a woman in a skirt on a billboard to be "pornographic").

I think the whole concept of "tasteful" versus "tasteless" also goes beyond things which would specifically be considered "pornography" (e.x. at some point, portrayals of violence in media lack any redeeming educational or artistic value and become tasteless).

But this -your thread- is allegedly about ethics, not good vs bad, or tasteful vs tasteless 

What is unethical about porn, in your view?

 

38 minutes ago, Night FM said:

It's similar to how most people would agree that "bad music" exists, but since there's no agreed-upon, formalized process for defining "good and bad music", doing so is more difficult than, say, deciding that a sports team played badly based on the outcome of a sports game. (And even some musicians who are well-regarded by the industry like Prince had critics who thought that they produced bad music).

Are you suggesting it’s unethical to listen to “bad” music?

[MigL]

1 hour ago, Peterkin said:

It reduces human beings to mindless puppets going through meaningless motions of someone else's fantasy

That applies to any movie, even Academy Award winners.

 

1 hour ago, Peterkin said:

darker variants, featuring animals, children, violence and sadism

The first two are illegal; the second two can be found in any movie, even Academy Award winners.

1 hour ago, Peterkin said:

If that makes me a prig, I don't mind.

Some might argue that you have to like it in order to accept it; I don't think so.
You can find it distasteful, but accept that others may enjoy it.

Edited September 24 by MigL

[Peterkin]

2 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Much like art demeans every buyer...

No, it's quite different. Art is personal to the artist; he's expressing himself freely and without pretense. The model is uninvolved: his or her body is depicted, but not touched or invaded; they don't need to pretend they're bringing their private feelings and desires into the studio. How the buyer feels, why they pay for one painting rather than another, is neither in play nor on display. If a man buys a picture of a naked man or woman, it's not necessarily because he's missing something in his own sex life.

 

1 hour ago, MigL said:

That applies to any movie, even Academy Award winners.

Ask the actors and directors of an Oscar winner whether they consider themselves invested in and engaged by the movie they're creating. Then ask the cast and crew of a skin flick. You might also delve into the ways in which many of the performers are recruited and then treated. Not all; for some it's a chosen career; for some, an easy side-hustle - just as it is with prostitution.

But there, too, is a dark side. Making it illegal doesn't stop the purveyors, any more that it stops organ-leggers, drug traffickers and gunrunners; it just drives them deeper into the shadows, renders them less accessible to regulation and taxation. The only thing that could stop the abuse is making it unprofitable. 

1 hour ago, MigL said:

the second two [violence and sadism] can be found in any movie, even Academy Award winners.

I won't watch or approve of those, either.

1 hour ago, MigL said:

You can find it distasteful, but accept that others may enjoy it.

I accept that others enjoy it; I sometimes understand why they enjoy it. I accept that some people enjoy a great many things I consider bad for them and for society.

That doesn't change my opinion of the thing itself.

[StringJunky]

15 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

No, it's quite different. Art is personal to the artist; he's expressing himself freely and without pretense. The model is uninvolved: his or her body is depicted, but not touched or invaded; they don't need to pretend they're bringing their private feelings and desires into the studio. How the buyer feels, why they pay for one painting rather than another, is neither in play nor on display. If a man buys a picture of a naked man or woman, it's not necessarily because he's missing something in his own sex life.

 

Ask the actors and directors of an Oscar winner whether they consider themselves invested in and engaged by the movie they're creating. Then ask the cast and crew of a skin flick. You might also delve into the ways in which many of the performers are recruited and then treated. Not all; for some it's a chosen career; for some, an easy side-hustle - just as it is with prostitution.

But there, too, is a dark side. Making it illegal doesn't stop the purveyors, any more that it stops organ-leggers, drug traffickers and gunrunners; it just drives them deeper into the shadows, renders them less accessible to regulation and taxation. The only thing that could stop the abuse is making it unprofitable. 

I won't watch or approve of those, either.

I accept that others enjoy it; I sometimes understand why they enjoy it. I accept that some people enjoy a great many things I consider bad for them and for society.

That doesn't change my opinion of the thing itself.

At the end of the day, we are all people of our era of youth and early adulthood. We absorb and transmit the morality of the period.

Edited September 24 by StringJunky

[sethoflagos]

5 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

At the end of the day, we are all people of our era of youth and early adulthood. We absorb and transmit the morality of the period.

Perhaps more particularly, and for a variety of reasons, many are drawn to explore the boundaries of accepted practice of the previous generation. All parents must I think see this in the behaviour of their children. It's how they learn.

And it is fundamentally unstable. Another of nature's little jokes at our conceits.

[swansont]

38 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

Ask the actors and directors of an Oscar winner whether they consider themselves invested in and engaged by the movie they're creating. Then ask the cast and crew of a skin flick. You might also delve into the ways in which many of the performers are recruited and then treated. Not all; for some it's a chosen career; for some, an easy side-hustle - just as it is with prostitution.

But there are a lot of movies made every year and only a few win awards, and only a few of the actors, so that’s not representative. Do you really think that woman #2 or bar patron has a real investment in the movie? Or is it more like the Hollywood adage “work is work”?

And it’s not like Hollywood actresses aren’t mistreated. (See e.g. Judy Garland) or that Hollywood doesn’t exploit people

25 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

At the end of the day, we are all people of our era of youth and early adulthood. We absorb and transmit the morality of the period.

Morals and ethics aren’t the same thing, though.

[Peterkin]

19 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

We absorb and transmit the morality of the period.

To a large extent, yes, but we also bring our own experience and sensibility to an informed adult opinion. I came up in the sixties, embracing free love and appreciation of the sensual pleasures - and quite a lot of self-indulgence and irresponsibility that as part of that culture. But then came the grown-up struggles for human rights, reproductive rights, the protection of women from domestic and workplace abuse, of physically and mentally challenged people from discrimination, etc. One develops a certain regard for the privacy and dignity of individuals.   

11 minutes ago, swansont said:

Or is it more like the Hollywood adage “work is work”?

Yes. Did she have a penis stuck in her anus and then her mouth? That's also work is work. I didn't bring up Hollywood movies. I'm sure actors and directors are embarrassed about the failures, but those don't make any money.

 

13 minutes ago, swansont said:

And it’s not like Hollywood actresses aren’t mistreated. (See e.g. Judy Garland) or that Hollywood doesn’t exploit people

How does that make pornography more respectable?

14 minutes ago, swansont said:

Morals and ethics aren’t the same thing, though.

Neither are hard porn and 'sexually suggestive content'. A lot of material is conflated in this topic, a wide range of imagery and activity. We may not all be thinking of the same material when we form an opinion of the ethics involved. 

[MigL]

On rare occasion I have watched porn.
And like Peterkin, I find a lot of the genres on sites like PornHub extremely distasteful ( and sometimes funny ).
But hey, whatever floats some people's boats, as long as consensual and not harmful.

Having no exposure to porn, however, Peterkin has somehow formed a strong opinion about it.
I myself, do know one porn star.
She lived down the street in the 80s, and went to my high school ( about a decade after me ).
She left before finishing, for LA, in the late 80s, and did porn with the stage name of Alexandra Quinn.
She is now past her 'best before date' and about 8 years ago was back in town selling real estate, but it didn't last long.
Should have finished school.

[swansont]

25 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

I didn't bring up Hollywood movies. I'm sure actors and directors are embarrassed about the failures, but those don't make any money.

You mentioned Oscar winners. There’s a lot of Hollywood in that.

Quote

How does that make pornography more respectable?

It doesn’t, and I didn’t claim it did. You were drawing a distinction, and I’m pointing out that these are not black and white.

Quote

Neither are hard porn and 'sexually suggestive content'. A lot of material is conflated in this topic, a wide range of imagery and activity. We may not all be thinking of the same material when we form an opinion of the ethics involved. 

No, but some things are introduced as being the topic of discussion, while others aren’t.

[Peterkin]

22 minutes ago, swansont said:

No, but some things are introduced as being the topic of discussion, while others aren’t.

yea:

On 9/22/2024 at 10:34 AM, Night FM said:

If we use a legal definition, the inclusion of nudity or sex in a piece of content doesn't automatically make it pornographic or obscene if it is "redeemed" by the overall merit of the work in question, such as educational, literary, or artistic merit.

Therefore, I didn't condemn art and sex education books, nude beaches or love scenes in a romantic film. 

My remarks were directed exclusively at pornography. Since it was in the title, I assumed it was eligible for discussion.

As regards art, educational and literary merit, I have no opinion until I've seen the material in question. 

Edited September 24 by Peterkin
incomplete

[dimreepr]

18 hours ago, Peterkin said:

No, it's quite different. Art is personal to the artist; he's expressing himself freely and without pretense. The model is uninvolved: his or her body is depicted, but not touched or invaded; they don't need to pretend they're bringing their private feelings and desires into the studio. How the buyer feels, why they pay for one painting rather than another, is neither in play nor on display. If a man buys a picture of a naked man or woman, it's not necessarily because he's missing something in his own sex life.

I'm not seeing the difference; art is personal, full stop, it's a pretend vision of reality.

The buyer of porn just wants to enjoy that version of reality, without people knowing he's bought it bc he doesn't want people to judge him.

The buyer of art, especially the expensive kind, tends to want people to judge them.

Both maybe missing something in life, but only one is judge as being sorded; it reminds me of the difference in alcohol consumption, poor people just buy the strongest available and run the gauntlet of judgement on their way home, while the rich people can pretend to appreciate the subtle difference's in quality and flavour, in full view of the plebs...

[StringJunky]

One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. The same with pornographic and erotic. It's who you ask.